隨著氣候變遷所引發的天災事故日益頻繁，氣候訴訟已成為公眾倡議行動方式之一，希冀透過法院的判決敦促政府行政機關或企業有所作為，以減緩氣候變遷下的衝擊。氣候訴訟肇始於2012年，由荷蘭環保組織Urgenda基金會對荷蘭政府提起集體訴訟，並於2015年由海牙地方法院做出判決並成為世界上第一個氣候訴訟的判決先例。此後，世界各國提起氣候訴訟做為要求政府或企業就氣候變遷之有所作為遂蔚為風潮。然而，反觀臺灣，雖早已制定《溫室氣體減量及管理法》，並於2022年1月4日正式實施《憲法訴訟法》，臺灣人民短期內似乎還看不到可以提起氣候訴訟之曙光，亦即臺灣人民是否得以提起公民訴訟的方式，藉由司法制度進而促使行政部門在氣候變遷下，對於現狀或將來為一定之作為。本文使用理性行為者模式、國內政治模式及社會學習模式作為研究理論，並以他國為例，以期發現公民氣候訴訟在臺灣發生的可行性。

With the increasing frequency of natural disasters caused by climate change, climate litigation has become one of the ways of public advocacy, hoping to urge government administrative agencies or enterprises to take action through court judgments to mitigate the impact of climate change. Climate litigation began in 2012, when a class action was filed against the Dutch government by the Urgenda Foundation, a Dutch environmental organization. Since then, countries around the world have filed climate lawsuits as a demand for governments or companies to do something about climate change. However, Taiwan, on the other hand, has already enacted the Greenhouse Gas Reduction and Management Law and officially implemented the Constitutional Litigation Law on January 4, 2022. It seems that the people of Taiwan cannot see the light of climate litigation in the short term. That is, can the people of Taiwan be able to file citizen lawsuits and use the judicial system to urge the executive branch to take certain actions on the status quo or the future under climate change? This paper uses the rational actor model, the domestic political model, and the social learning model as research theories, and takes other countries as examples to find out the feasibility of citizen climate litigation in Taiwan.